The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1887-09-28
A Case of Great Importance.

Washington National Republican to the
effect that "decsions of the United
States supreme court in several cases
authoritatively settle the question that
state cannot prohibit the sale of i'm
ported liquors in the original packages.
Now it is stated that under cover of de-
cisions of the supreme courts of Maine
and the United States, as set forth
above, one Michael Burns, saloon
keeper of Augusta, Maine, is prose-
cutting an open and unimpeded traffic
in "imported liquors in the original
package" He went to England last
spring and arranged for the importation
of large quantity of spirits, TO be put
in pint bottles and into the smallest
packages allowed by the importation
laws. The bulk of this consignment
was left in the Portland custom-house,
while with the remainder Burns began
an open business in " Original pack
ages " at Augusta. For some days he
was not interfered with, but finally, by
direction of the governor, he was ar
rested and his not very large stock
seized. When he came to be tried be-
fore the police court it was found that
he had so much color of law on his side
that it was best to stop prosecution.
1t was deemed inexpedient formally to
acquit him, but an appeal directly to
higher court, and ultimately to the full
bench of the state supreme court, was
devised. The superior court has just
found Burns guilty of keeping a nui-
sance, and Judge Whitehouse charged
the jury that the fact that Burns sold
the original packages was no defence.
The case will now be taken to the state
supreme court, and probably will go to
the United States supreme court for
final determination.
The decisions of the United States
supreme court bearing upon this ques-
ton are thus stated In 1927 the court
decided in a Maryland case that a state
could not impose duty or license on
importers. In 1916 Chief-iustice fancy
held, in Massachusetts case, that the
state law forbidding the sale of liquor
in less quantities than twenty gallons
was constitutional, inasmuch as it did
not interfere with the trade in ardent
spirits while the article remained part
of foreign commerce and was in the
hands of the importer for sale in the
cask or vessel in which the laws of
congress authorized it to be imported.
Congress had the right, added the chief
justice, to say what articles should be
imported and what excluded. Spirits
come under the former category, and
no state has a right to prohibit their
introduction. In case in Maine Estate
Us. Robinson) the supreme court of
that state made a discrimination be-
tween importers and other dealers.
The gist of the decision was as follows:
" No one but the importer himself has
the right to sell except as allowed by
the law of the state, and he can sell
only in the original packages. The
power of the state is plenary to regu-
late or prohibit all sales except such as
are thus made by the importer himself.
Those who purchase from him have no
right to SELL" Should the former opin-
ions of the court in similar cases be
sustained in the present one, and con-
gress refuse to modify the importation
laws, the effect upon the work of pro-
hibiting the liquor traffic will be some
what embarrassing in the prohibition
states. In referring to this important
question, the Cincinnati Commercial
Gazette remarks: cit is very obvious
that the relations of the general gov
eminent to legislation by the states are
likely to come into increased promi-
hence with the multiplication of pro-
hibition enactments. The decisions of
the supreme court on the general le-
gality of restricted license or entire
domestic prohibition have been all that
the most radical temperance man could
desire, but there is an unpleasant sound
in its utterances respecting importa-
tons. Are liquors to prove a solitary
exception to the rule which protects
home industry against foreign compe-
tition ?n